No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992/04/08 - Minutes - PC-HPCCITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting April 8, 1992 Chairman McNiel called the Regular Meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission to order at 7:00 p.m. The meeting was held in the Council Chamber at Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California. Chairman McNiel then led in the pledge of allegiance. ROLL CkLL COMMISSIONERS: PRESENT: Suzanne Chitiea, Larry McNiel, John Melcher, Peter Tolstoy, Wendy Vallette ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Brad Buller, City Planner; Dan Coleman, Principal Planner; Nancy Fong, Senior Planner; Tom Grahn, Assistant Planner; Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer; Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney; Anna-Lisa Hernandez, Assistant Planner; Barbara Krall, Assistant Engineer; Otto Kroutil, Deputy City Planner; Scott Murphy, Associate Planner; Beverly Nissen, Associate Planner; Steve Ross, Assistant Planner; Gail Sanchez, Planning Commission Secretary ANNOUNCEMENTS Brad Buller, City Planner, suggested that Item N, a discussion with South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), be moved forward on the agenda prior to the public hearing items in that the information to be discussed would be of community interest. He stated a representative from SCAQMD would be making a presentation regarding air quality regulations. Mr. Buller announced that additional information had been placed before each Commissioner regarding several items on the agenda. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Melcher, unanimously carried, to adopt the minutes of the Adjourned Meeting of February 20, 1992. Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Chitiea, unanimously carried, to adopt the minutes of March 11, 1992. Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Tolstoy, carried 4-0-0-1 with Chitiea abstaining, to adopt the minutes of the Adjourned Meeting of March 19, 1992. CONSENT CALENDAR ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 92-02 - JACK MASI C. Resolution of Denial for a request to expand the list of permitted and conditionally permitted uses in Subarea 7 of the Industrial Area Specific Plan to include certain retail and service-related activities. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 92-08 - LA PARRY - A resolution of approval for a request to establish a silk flower and gift shop totaling 612 square feet within the historic Albert House, on 1.23 acres of land in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre), located at 10323 19th Street - APN: 1076-151-02. Ce TIME EXTENSION FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 14459 - L. A. CHANCO - A residential subdivision of 37 single family lots, and design review thereof, on 8.3 acres of land in the Low Medium Residential District (4-8 dwelling units per acre), located at the southeast corner of Archibald Avenue and Lemon Avenue - APN: 201-252-04, 40, 41, and 49. Commissioner Melcher requested that Item B be pulled from the consent calendar. Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Melcher, unanimously carried, to adopt Items A and C of the Consent calendar. B. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 92-08 - LA PARRY Commissioner Melcher commented that the driveway has three spokes of river rock within the concrete driveway. He hoped that whatever material is used to construct the additional two parking spaces is functional and as useful as the concrete driveway in line with the other leeway accorded the applicant for the purposes of preserving the historic residence. Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Chitiea, unanimously carried, to adopt the resolution approving Conditional Use Permit 92-08. PUBLIC HEARINGS J® CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 92-07 - HIDE A WHILE - A request to expand an existing lounge by approximately 500 square feet within the existing Perry's Shopping Center in the Community Commercial District of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, located at 9469 Foothill Boulevard - APN: 208-261-40. Planning Commission Minutes -2- April 8, 1992 Chairman McNiel noted that a request had been received from the applicant asking that the item be continued to April 22, 1992. He opened the public hearing. Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Melcher, to continue Conditional Use Permit 92-07 to April 22, 1992. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITlEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried , , , , DIRECTOR'S REPORTS N. DISCUSSION WITH SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT - Oral report Brad Bullet, City Planner, noted that during review of a non-construction conditional use permit, a question had been raised about how the South Coast Air Quality Management District regulates small businesses. He introduced John Dunlap, from the Public Advisors Office of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) and mentioned that Eugene Fisher, Intergovernmental Officer of SCAQMD, was also present to answer any questions. John Dunlap, SCAQMD, provided a packet of information for each Commissioner. He congratulated the City on the adoption of an Air Quality Element added to the City's General Plan. He explained how rules are adopted by the SCAQMD based on a 2-3 year cycle plan. He stated that an air emissions inventory is formulated with input from local governments and control measures are developed from the inventory. He noted that the SCAQMD works with Chambers of Commerce, trade groups, and outreach publications to reach businesses which are affected by the control measures. He remarked that the requirements are the strictest in the nation. He stated that affected businesses are required to submit plans and audit updates to ensure compliance. He observed that in addition, the SCAQMD has a number of compliance officials who inspect businesses. He said they also recently conducted seven workshops and asked businesses to advise how they were being impacted. He noted that consultants were now studying the testimony of the 250 people who spoke at the workshops and a report with recommendations would be forwarded to the SCAQMD board. Commissioner Melcher noted that the question had come up because the Commissioners wanted to be know if they should be concerned about SCAQMD permits. Mr. Dunlap responded that it was his understanding that the Planning staff is knowledgeable of what applications require a permit and they are referring businesses to the SCAQMD. He noted that if a business is merely relocating, they probably already have proper SCAQMD permits and new businesses are Planning Commission Minutes -3- April 8, 1992 generally associated with trade groups, chambers of commerce, etc. He said that in addition to their 200 inspectors in the field, they purchase business and trade group lists. Chairman McNiel stated that they did not wish to hold up businesses, but wanted to be sure we are in compliance. He thanked the SCAQMD for the information. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 13987 - LEWIS DEVELOPMENT COMPANY - The creation of a single 1.31 acre parcel for the development of a gas station, mini-market, and car wash in the Medium Residential designation (8-14 dwelling units per acre) of the Terra Vista Planned Community, located at the southwest corner of Base Line Road and Rochester Avenue - APN: 227-151-17. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. Related file: Conditional Use Permit 91-20. Barbara Krall, Assistant Engineer, presented the staff report. Commissioner Melcher remarked that when the matter had last been before the Commission, it was his understanding that the requirements for off-site street improvements and storm drain improvements were based on policies developed by City Council, and it was not within the purview of the Commission to change those policies. Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer, agreed it was not within the Commission's purview to delete the requirements, but noted the Commissioners were welcome to make recommendations to the City Council. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Don Thompson, Lewis Development Company, P. O. Box 670, Upland, remarked that the previous City Engineer had required adoption of this policy because Terra Vista was being developed in a hop-scotch fashion. He proposed that they construct Rochester Avenue full width from Base Line Road south to Ironwood instead of Church Street. He suggested that they would then complete the construction south of Church in conjunction with an adjacent residential project or within two years even if the residential project were not yet built. Commissioner Melcher asked if Mr. Thompson was requesting to delay storm drain improvements as well as street improvements. Mr. Thompson proposed that they install the storm drain improvements down to Church Street when the street is constructed. He felt the development of the service station parcel would not add significantly to the runoff in the area. Commissioner Tolstoy noted that Ironwood only goes east from Rochester. asked if it is planned to go west. He Planning Commission Minutes -4- April 8, 1992 --- Mr. Thompson replied that it will remain only as a link to the east. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Commissioner Chitiea remarked that she was not in favor of the project because it is adjacent to residential development. She felt that if the Commission approved the project, all improvements should be made up front. Commissioner Melcher remarked that he had been with the developer at the time the policies were originally adopted, and he thought he knew the reasons for the adoption. He felt the conditions should be revised because he did not feel they are within in the spirit of the policies. Commissioner Vallette noted that she originally opposed the project as a whole. She felt that the location on Base Line and Rochester will generate additional traffic on Rochester necessitating the street improvements down to Church. She also felt the storm drains should be constructed in light of the experience during recent storms. Commissioner Tolstoy agreed with Commissioner Chitiea that all improvements should be made up front. Chairman McNiel noted that he did not think a street should be narrowed mid- block. He supported staff's position of requiring the improvements. Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Tolstoy, to issue a Negative Declaration and adopt the resolution approving Tentative Parcel Map 13987. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE NOES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITlEA ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried ***** E. MODIFICATION TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 91-03 - JAMES PAGE - A request to modify the hours of operation and to expand the permitted uses within an existing 103,522 square foot indoor wholesale/retail commercial use located within the General Industrial District ( Subarea 11 ) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan at 11530 Sixth Street -APN: 229-262-28. (Continued from March 25, 1992. ) Anna-Lisa Hernandez, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report. Commissioner Melcher asked if the additional uses would require individual conditional use permits, so that each time one of the small businesses wanted to locate there, it would have to appear before the Planning Commission. Brad Buller, City Planner, replied as proposed they would not. Planning Commission Minutes -5- April 8, 1992 Commissioner Melcher felt that if the Commission agreed that the shared parking theory works for Friday operations, the applicant would then request seven-day-per-week operations. Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, noted the shared parking study could be used to demonstrate that sufficient parking is available seven days per week, but the conditional use permit would limit the operation to whatever times the Commission dictated. Commissioner Melcher questioned why the applicant was only asking for all day Fridays, instead of all week long. He noted that concerns had been raised in the previous staff report regarding adherence to business license requirements and adequacy of security personnel. He asked how those problems had been addressed. Ms. Hernandez responded that the applicant had not advised why they were only requesting Friday hours of operation. She noted that since the initial staff report, the applicant had worked with planning staff and business license staff to ensure that vendors are properly licensed. She said the City Attorney had informed staff that the conditions had been tightened as much as legally possible to secure compliance. She said that business license staff has been visiting the site on weekends to take applications. Ms. Hernandez observed that the applicant had dismissed the hired security service one week after commencing operations and had hired their own security force without informing staff who those security people are. She noted that the applicant has indicated they will submit a listing of their security personnel. Chairman McNiel asked if it would be legal for the outdoor swap meet to take place at the General Dynamics location. Mr. Bullet said it appears the use started after adoption of the Industrial Area Specific Plan which prohibits the use. He noted there had been discussions at City Council and the Council was aware of the use and had indicated it was not a concern to them in its present location. He said therefore staff had not pursued enforcement. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. James Page, Carnival Malls, 11530 Sixth Street, Rancho Cucamonga, stated they had diligently pursued working with the City to address any problems that have come up. He stated they were trying to work with staff with regards to business licensing. He remarked that some vendors had only operated for one weekend and had therefore not followed through with obtaining a license. He stated that the City Council had discussed the outdoor swap meet and the City Council members seemed to feel it was working well. He said the person who ran the swap meet had approached him and requestad that the swap meet be moved to Carnival Malls since the General Dynamics site was being sold. He felt the swap meet could be better regulated if it was moved to his site. He noted that they are currently selling food and using portable toilets at the General Dynamics site. He noted that the swap meet operates from 6:00 to 11:00 a.m. while Carnival Malls opens at 10:00 a.m., so there would be an overlap of Planning Commission Minutes -6- April 8, 1992 time. He suggested that a temporary use permit be granted to allow the swap meet to operate a maximum of three times to be sure things would work satisfactorily. He said that would allow them to make adjustments as necessary to mitigate any problems that arise. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if the electronics swap meet deals in both new and used merchandise. Mr. Page responded that they do. Commissioner Tolstoy noted that when the original conditional use permit for Carnival Malls was approved only new items were to be sold. Mr. Buller confirmed that was correct. Commissioner Tolstoy noted that if the electronics swap meet was going to sell second hand equipment, it would not meet the original conditional use permit conditions. Mr. Page suggested the swap meet could be restricted to selling only new equipment. Commissioner Tolstoy felt a great preponderance of the electronic swap meet trade is in second hand items. He felt such a restriction would limit the swap meet to a point where it would not be successful. Mr. Page remarked that was why they had suggested allowing the swap meet on a temporary basis so that mitigations could be proposed to solve the problems that crop up. He noted that the staff report mentioned that no outdoor activities are permissible unless screened. He suggested mitigating the outdoor swap meet by screening it. Commissioner Tolstoy noted that outdoor swap meets are conditionally permitted in the Heavy Industrial Area and not in the zone where the applicant's business is located. Commissioner Chitiea asked who is responsible for the lighting and security of the parking lot. Mr. Page replied that they were in conjunction with the landlord. Commissioner Chitiea noted that she had recently visited the property and it had turned dark by the time she left. She felt the parking lot lighting was insufficient with some lights not functioning. She said she saw no security personnel and she felt very uncomfortable with the conditions. She wanted those conditions addressed under the present circumstances. Mr. Page stated they had contacted the Planning Department regarding the lighting situation. He said one of the other tenants in the business park had disconnected most of the parking lot lights because they had been on his Planning Commission Minutes -7- April 8, 1992 meter. He said they had discussed the problem with the other tenant and the landlord and the landlord is working to correct the problem and install more lighting. Commissioner Chitiea requested that additional security personnel be present until the lighting is sufficient. Mr. Page asked if she was looking for uniformed security personnel. Commissioner Chitiea noted she had not seen anyone at the time she was there and she was very uncomfortable. She suggested someone be there in uniform so that patrons and vendors will realize it is not merely someone who is loitering. Mr. Page agreed that was a good suggestion and said he would work on it. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if it would not be possible for the applicant to require that vendors supply a copy of their business license before renting them space. Mr. Page responded that the vendors have to rent the space before they can apply for a business license. He said there had also been some problems with the franchise tax board. Mr. Page stated his lease agreements indicate that City business licenses are required. Commissioner Melcher noted that the applicant had indicated they were not open on Friday evenings even though the current conditional use permit allows them to be open. Mr. Page responded that they found they did not generate enough business on Friday evenings to justify being open. He said that during the day on Friday seems to be a better time for women to shop alone rather than in the evening hours when they are busy with the family. He noted that on the weekends they generally draw entire families and it was felt they could greatly increase their business by being open on Fridays during the day. Commissioner Melcher recalled that the applicant had originally requested weekend operations stating that their concept was to provide incubator stalls for people who held other jobs. He asked how the vendors would be able to be open on Fridays if they had other jobs. Mr. Page remarked that not all vendors would be open on Fridays, but he projected that about 50 percent would open with 100 percent on weekends. Commissioner Melcher asked about the security personnel program. He asked how many people were involved, what training they had received, and whether they wear uniforms. Mr. Page replied that they had terminated their contract with the security firm first hired because they did not feel the employees were capable of doing the job. He felt they were too old and infirm. He stated they had hired the Planning Commission Minutes -8- April 8, 1992 head person from the security firm and he now has hired security personnel who work directly for Carnival Malls. He said they hire young men up to age 25 who are healthy and alert and some have had police training. Commissioner Melcher asked how many people are employed solely as security personnel and when they are there. Mr. Page said there are three security personnel there when the facility is open and none when it is closed. Commissioner Tolstoy recalled there had been discussions about the amount of training for the security personnel. He noted that it did not appear their security personnel had been formally trained. He felt it is important that the security people be adequately trained. Mr. Page said that they are either ex-policemen or have been trained by Carnival Malls staff. Commissioner Melcher asked if the security personnel wear uniforms. Mr. Page replied that they do not. Commissioner Melcher asked how a patron or vendor would find a security person. Mr. Page replied that the head of security wears a badge. they could use uniforms. He remarked that Commissioner Tolstoy thought that had been discussed when the use was first approved. Mr. Coleman remarked that uniforms had been discussed, but they had not been made a requirement. He said it was a requirement that security personnel were to be provided both inside and outside. Deran Yalian, Carnival Malls, 11530 Sixth Street, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he thought the Planning Commission had made a good decision when they approved the Carnival Malls project. He said they had seen a lot of businesses come in and some have graduated to take offices in other parts of town. He noted that the gentleman who runs the electronics swap meet was also in the audience. Chairman McNiel asked Mr. Yalian's function with Carnival Malls. Mr. Yalian replied that he manages the facility. Bryan Brock, operator for General Dynamics swap meet, stated he had operated the swap meet since its inception. He noted the swap meet was instituted for the benefit of ham radio operators and took more than a year to be approved by General Dynamics to operate at its present location. He stated he had called the Rancho Cucamonga business office and the Police Department when they were organizing and he was told that business licenses would not be required. He Planning Commission Minutes -9- April 8, 1992 reported that the swap meet started operating in January 1986 and occurs on the second Saturday of every month. He said it is a very successful swap meet with good quality merchandise. He noted that many people in the hobby cannot afford to buy new equipment and therefore must shop at a swap meet. He said he polices their swap meet every day that it operates and he looks for hazardous materials or other materials against their regulations. He said he wanted to move their operation to a class location, not a flea market atmosphere. He said they only have electronics and relative tools that the hobbyist would use. He indicated the swap meet has grown tremendously and is now the largest of its kind in Southern California. He said they would be more than willing to work with the City to be sure that any necessary business licenses are obtained. He requested that they be able to operate under a temporary use permit so they could prove they run a class operation that would complement Carnival Malls. He requested that staff and the Commissioners visit the swap meet. He felt the swap meet is a benefit to the community and noted that many of the vendors leave the swap meet and then go to lunch in the area. He guessed that approximately 3,000 people attend the swap meet during the course of the day. Chairman McNiel asked how many vendors generally participate. Mr. Brock estimated 350 vendors on average. Chairman McNiel asked how that would affect parking at the facility. Mr. Brock said their current lot is set up so that vendors drive up and vend from their parking spot. Chairman McNiel asked why they had not considered having the vendors inside. Mr. Brock said that some of the vendors would like to be indoors because they have equipment which can be damaged by the elements; however, he felt it would be difficult to have all of the vendors inside. He said some of the vendors may even be interested in being full time participants at Carnival Malls. Commissioner Melcher asked if the swap meet is secured by fencing when it functions at General Dynamics. Mr. Brock replied that it is not. Commissioner Melcher asked if any other business is being conducted on the property that day. Mr. Brock said there could be a small number of employees working that day. Commissioner Melcher asked how much area the swap meet occupies. Mr. Brock said he had never done an overall parking space count. Commissioner Melcher asked where they proposed placing the swap meet at the Carnival Mall site. Planning Commission Minutes -10- April 8, 1992 Mr. Brock said they had several ideas. He said their first thought had been to use the area across the back of the parking lot north of the building and they might expand and use the northwest side if necessary. He said both areas are blocked from view of the street. He said the area they use on the parking lot would depend upon how many vendors opted to locate inside the building. Commissioner Melcher asked if all of that property was under the control of Carnival Malls. Mr. Page responded that it was. Commissioner Melcher asked where customers will park. Mr. Brock said customers could park in front and on the sides. Me recalled that there were over 700 parking spaces available on site. He thought there were approximately 175 in the back area. Paul Petty, 8547 Clubhouse Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he worked with Mr. Brock at the General Dynamics swap meet and had been with them since their inception. He believed the function is necessary for the community. He said the amateur radio community has grown through inventing and adapting existing equipment. He said the sources for purchasing single components for developing technology has dried up and it is virtually impossible to buy only new equipment. He also noted that most people upgrade their equipment by selling their old equipment. He remarked that used commercial equipment is converted for private use. He noted that vendors and buyers from outside of California attend the swap meet. He thought that if the hours do not overlap, there should not be any parking problems. Commissioner Melcher asked how much longer they would be operating at the General Dynamics site. Mr. Petty responded they did not know. Commissioner Melcher asked if vendors are charged a fee. Mr. Petty said a space fee is collected. He said they started out without collecting fees, but the vendors requested garbage facilities and portable toilets so they now collect fees to provide such services. Richard Maratz, 8745 Lurline, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he had attended the City Council meeting when the conditional use permit for Carnival Malls was discussed and he did not recall the Council wanting to prohibit outdoor swap meets. He requested a copy of the staff report. Chairman McNiel stated that outdoor swap meets are permitted in Subarea 15 of the Industrial Area Specific Plan. Mr. Maratz stated he frequents the swap meets as a buyer. He asked the Commission to approve a temporary use permit for the swap meet to be held at the Carnival Mall site. He said the swap meet currently has high visibility Planning Commission Minutes -11- April 8, 1992 and allowing it to operate under a temporary use permit would give the City knowledge on how it would operate at the Carnival Mall site. John Wendt, 10260 56th Street, Mira Loma, stated he is a licensed ham radio operator and a member of Radio Amateur Civil Emergency Service (R.A.C.E.S.), a group which works with the City's Disaster Preparedness department. He said a lot of the R.A.C.E.S. members buy equipment at the swap meet. He also reported that electronics stores used to allow trade ins of used equipment, so that people used to be able to buy used equipment at electronics stores. He said that the stores no longer allow trade-ins, so the swap meet has become a major source of equipment. He asked the Commission to look favorably upon the swap meet. John Schute, 10155 Hemlock, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he is a ham radio operator and a R.A.C.E.S. member. He said the ham radio industry is so specialized that without the swap meet it would be necessary to drive to downtown Los Angeles in order to purchase parts. Chris Puent, stated she is one of the vendors at Carnival Malls. She said she is a big fan of used items in that she likes collectables and antiques. She said she had been a vendor at Carnival Malls since November and it has been a tough year. She hoped that the introduction of the electronics swap meet would benefit the Carnival Mall vendors and the mall vendors would benefit the swap meet people. She said that many of the Carnival Mall vendors are there out of economic necessity because they have lost their other jobs. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Commissioner Tolstoy noted that the Commission needed to discuss applications for expansion of permitted uses within Carnival Malls, an expansion of the days of operation to include certain holidays, and an expansion of the hours of operation on Fridays. He agreed with staff's recommendations on those three items. He was concerned about the shared parking concept but felt staff had addressed his concerns. He felt the security issue should be addressed as he thought the operators had hired young people who did not appear to have adequate training. He also thought the applicant could address the business license issue by not allowing anyone to sell without a City business license. He supported the electronic swap meet, but was concerned about the sale of used equipment, because he feared that other types of used equipment may then be offered and that may lead to problems with stolen merchandise. He noted that the City already has a subarea which conditionally approves outdoor swap meets, and he felt that was where the electronic swap meet should locate. Commissioner Vallette agreed with staff's recommendations. She felt the electronic swap meet has played an important part in the community and is a valuable asset to the community, but she did not agree this was a proper location. Commissioner Melcher did not favor mixing service uses with the indoor swap meet use. He noted that both types of uses are conditionally permitted within the subarea but he did not feel it would be appropriate to mix the uses at one Planning Commission Minutes -12- April 8, 1992 location. He opposed extending the hours of operation to include all day Friday because he felt that was an entrance to a request for other weekdays. He thought there were too many areas where the applicant was not in compliance with the original terms of the conditional use permit and he thought perhaps that request could be considered after the applicant had proven they could operate in compliance. He supported the holidays recommended by staff. He did not feel the Commission had enough information to make an informed decision on the swap meet issue. He remarked that he planned to visit the General Dynamics swap meet on Saturday. He felt a detailed plan should be submitted for proposals on where vendors would park, where swap meet customers and Carnival Mall customers would park, how the overlapping time would be handled, etc. before the Commission could even consider permitting the swap meet use. Commissioner Chitiea agreed with staff's proposals regarding holidays. She thought the comments made by Commissioner Melcher with regard to Friday hours were appropriate. She supported the electronics swap meet but did not feel it would be appropriate to allow the use in this location. She encouraged the swap meet operators to locate in Subarea 15. She felt the matter of security to be important and thought the security officers need to be trained and identified by uniform. Chairman McNiel said he was not opposed to mixing the uses. He did not oppose extending the Friday hours even though the applicant may then return to ask for additional weekday operating hours because he felt the Commission would have the right to refuse. He supported the six legal holidays outlined by staff. He agreed the swap meet is valuable. He acknowledged that it may make logical sense to tie the two uses together, but noted that it creates problems for the City. He stated approval would set a precedent. He felt that if more information and a better plan were presented, he may support the swap meet in this location. He asked if it would be possible to act on Parts A, B, and C and defer action on the swap meet use. Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney, responded affirmatively. Commissioner Melcher noted that Chairman McNiel had indicated he was not opposed to expanding the Friday hours of operation because he felt the City would still have the option of refusing future requests to expand to other days of the week. He noted that the original premise was that there would be no conflict with other center users because the mall would only operate on weekends. He felt retaining the weekend only hours would be appropriate. Commissioner Vallette asked if the other Commissioners would support moving the swap meet indoors at the Carnival Mall location. She said she was not opposed to an indoor swap meet, but she would not support one outdoors. Mr. Buller indicated there would have to be an amendment to the conditional use permit to allow sale of used equipment. He thought perhaps the condition could be worded to identify a certain indoor area could be used for the swap meet. Planning Commission Minutes -13- April 8, 1992 Commissioner Melcher suggested that all vendors at the swap meet section should be required to be licensed ham operators. Commissioner Tolstoy questioned if the electronics swap meet were approved, if the City would then have to approve other types of swap meets for other types of used merchandise. Mr. Buller noted that temporary use permits are generally approved for special sales of normal merchandise. He said staff had felt that the request was not in the spirit of a normal temporary use permit. Commissioner Melcher asked that the Commissioners further discuss the requested uses in Part A. Chairman McNiel did not oppose any of the requested uses. Commissioner Melcher did not feel mortgage brokers, real estate services, travel bureaus, beauty/nail salons, or photography studios should be added. He thought other areas of the City are better suited for those uses. Commissioner Chitiea agreed this is an industrial area and she felt those types of businesses would be better placed in other areas of the City. She felt their inclusion in this area would diffuse the Commercial base. Commissioner Tolstoy felt jewelry repair might be acceptable, but he did not support the other uses. Chairman McNiel felt there may be small, incubator businesses in all of those types of businesses and he thought this may be an area for them to start. Commissioner Tolstoy noted that a travel agency would not be successful without having expensive computer equipment. Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Vallette, to adopt the resolution approving Modification to Conditional Use Permit 91-03, Part A, with modification to only expand the uses to include jewelry repair services. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE NOES: COMMISSIONERS: MCNIEL ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Chitiea, to adopt the resolution approving Modification to Conditional Use Permit 91-03, Part B, to expand the hours of operation to include six legal holidays. Motion carried by the following vote: Planning Commission Minutes -14- April 8, 1992 AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITlEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Tolstoy, to direct staff to prepare a resolution of denial for Modification to Conditional Use Permit 91-03, Part C, regarding expansion of hours of operation on Fridays, for adoption at the April 22, 1992, Planning Commission meeting. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MELCHER, TOLSTOY NOES: COMMISSIONERS: MCNIEL, VALLETTE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Melcher to adopt the resolution denying Use Determination 92-02. Commissioner Melcher suggested the matter be continued. Commissioner Vallette asked if the applicant was willing to agree to a continuance. Mr. Page agreed. Commissioner Tolstoy suggested that if Commissioners Chitiea and Melcher would withdraw their motion, he would propose another motion. Mr. Buller stated that the request was for a use determination. He thought it would be appropriate for the Commission to take action to deny the use determination. He stated that if the Commission wished to allow the swap meet use, it would be necessary to advertise a request to amend the conditional use permit. Commissioner Melcher withdrew his second and Commissioner Chitiea withdrew her motion. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if the matter should be continued to a specific date. Mr. Hanson responded that would not be necessary because the matter would have to be advertised. Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Melcher, to continue Use Determination 92-02 for additional study and gathering of more information. Motion carried by the following vote: Planning Commission Minutes -15- April 8, 1992 AYES: COMMISSIONERS: MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE NOES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried Commissioner Tolstoy suggested that the General Dynamics people might wish to consider other sites. He suggested they contact Chaffey College because he felt the electronics swap meet may complement Chaffey College's electronics program. Mr. Brock stated he had already approached the college but things had not worked out. He said all of the paved parking areas are too fractured and the college had been unwilling to pave the only parking area he thought would work. He suggested that the Commission could limit the sale of used items to only those which are connected with "high tech electronics." The Planning Commission adjourned from 9:25 p.m. to 9:40 p.m. ***** F. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT 14475 - SAHAMA IN"~ESTMENTS - A public hearing to comment on the Subsequent Environmental Impact Report prepared for Vesting Tentative Tract 14475, a residential subdivision and design review of 71 single family residences on 113 acres of land in the Hillside Residential (less than 2 dwelling units per acre) and Open Space Districts, located north of Almond Avenue between Sapphire and Turquoise Streets - APN: 200-051-07, 55, 56, and 57. Staff recommends certification of the Subsequent Environmental Impact Report. (Continued from March 25, 1992.) Scott Murphy, Associate Planner, introduced Sandra Bauer, the consultant who prepared the Environmental Impact Report (EIR). Sandra Bauer, Bauer Environmental Services, 2530 Red Hill Avenue, Santa Ana, presented an overview of the supplemental EIR. Chairman McNiel asked if Ms. Bauer had had an opportunity to review the letter from Leeona Klippstein. Ms. Bauer replied she had received the letter immediately prior to the meeting and had an opportunity to briefly review it. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if she had also reviewed the letter from the Fish and Wildlife Service of the the United States Department of the Interior. Ms. Bauer noted that letter was attached to Ms. Klippstein's letter. She suggested that she respond to the points raised in Ms. Klippstein's letter. Regarding Point 1, Ms. Bauer stated that the site was surveyed by their biologist, who concluded that the potential valuable habitat was located in Planning Commission Minutes -16- April 8, 1992 the Cucamonga Canyon Wash. She said the survey indicated there were five sets of species that may be present and there was a high probability that the horned lizard would be present. She said it was suggested that a spring survey might be useful to certify the presence of the species, but the survey was not recommended as a formal mitigation measure because the project does not include any impacts in the wash. She said the report noted that the project will result in the loss of about 58 acres of chaparral and 25 acres of sage scrub, but they felt that even though locally important, it was not regionally significant because approximately 9 acres of habitat would remain in the wash that would support the species that they felt might be present. Ms. Bauer noted that recently there has been an increased emphasis on the cactus wren and the gnatcatcher. She said the biologist who did the survey is a very meticulous birder and did not feel that the species had any probability of being on the site. She said other indicator species also were not present. Therefore, she said it was felt that an additional spring survey would probably yield the same results. She noted there is now an increased sensitivity to habitat and she supported encouraging the retention of habitat. She said they would be more than happy to conduct the spring survey if the Commission would feel more comfortable with the results. She noted that the Fish and Wildlife Service letter was looking at the region as a whole. She said it is true that Southern California has habitat that is suitable for the named species, but other proximate areas have good habitat for the species, while the quality of the habitat on this site is not as good. Ms. Bauer said that Point 2 requested that the listing indicate C-2 species. She noted that C-2 species are unclassified, meaning that official agencies are actively in the process of gathering information to determine if a particular species is endangered, threatened, or sensitive. She said their EIR did list the species included on the C-2 listing. Regarding Points 3 and 4, Ms. Bauer reported the EIR had been sent not only to the State Clearinghouse, which is the state agency responsible for notifying affected agencies, but also directly to the California Department of Fish and Game, which had not responded. She said that as the project does not involve federal funds and does not require a federal permit, it does not trigger involvement from the federal Fish and Wildlife Service. She noted, however, that the City invited review by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service during the last several weeks and the department had not responded. Ms. Bauer agreed with Recommendation 5, that the Cucamonga Wash buffer be fenced prior to any grading to prevent accidental dumping into the wash. She noted that they had already eliminated the words "attempt to" in reference to protecting the native oak trees. However, in response to Point 6, she said they had left in the verbiage regarding replacement in the event that a tree should be lost. She suggested if the Commissioners wished to remove the replacement conditions, that would be acceptable because the intent is that there should be no impacts on the existing trees. Ms. Bauer concurred with Item 7 and felt it would probably enhance the project. Mr. Murphy remarked that Item 8 was more germane to the tract map itself. He said that if the Commission certified the EIR, then the tract map could be considered. He noted that in its present configuration, the main drainage area of the tract map is coming from the northeast corner of the site. He said that if flood control measures were eliminated, those houses would be in Planning Commission Minutes -17- April 8, 1992 a situation where they may be flooded out. He said if the Commission felt that alternatives to the tract would be more appropriate, there may be ways to better maintain the natural drainage but there would become a time and place where the drainage would have to be controlled and channeled into some type of improved structure. Ms. Bauer strongly supported Item 9. She agreed that routing of drainage from going into Cucamonga Canyon Wash to either of the other two drainage areas shown on the plan would be an improvement so far as potential impacts to the creek because the wash has the most valuable habitat on the site. She concurred with Comment 10 and stated the report already calls for a qualified archaeologist to be on site during the grading of the site. She noted that the Final EIR includes a subsequent look at the historical, cultural, and archaeological resources on the site and found there are no historical resources of value. She said the study was done by a qualified archaeologist. She suggested that if the Gabrielino Indians would like to submit some further information, it could be included. She said they had contacted the Native American Heritage Society for comments, so she felt there would be no changes. She said the EIR had considered local landfills and acknowledged that local landfills have life spans of 1-6 years. She reported they had talked with Diane O'Neal from the City and the conclusion was that the development would not make a significant impact. She remarked that the City is embarking on a recycling effort that will affect this project and will benefit the impact on landfills. Commissioner Tolstoy questioned the adequacy of water pressure to fight forest fires since the EIR indicated some of the houses should be required to have pressure boosters. Ms. Bauer replied there was a recommendation that seven of the houses have on- site pump pressure booster systems. She noted the wildland fire study was the first of two documents and the second document will give concrete mitigations to be made before any grading can take place. Mr. Murphy noted that the wildland fire study calls for minimum pressures available at fire hydrants and if those requirements cannot be met, the project may not be able to happen. Commissioner Tolstoy noted that the area has an abundance of alluvial scrub. He remarked that the City has asked the County to make a further study in the Etiwanda North area and he felt the City should provide a good model for the County by paying attention to the habitat. He did not feel the question was adequately addressed in the EIR. Ms. Bauer stated she had brought two biologists: involved in the original survey and Ann Johnston, participation program looking at the habitat. Vince Coleman who was involved in a community Vince Coleman, staff botanist, Michael Brandman Associates, 2530 Hill Avenue, Santa Ana, stated the alluvial scrub on the site is basically confined to the wash which is outside of the area of development. He said there is coastal sage scrub on the plateau which will be affected by development. Planning Commission Minutes -18- April 8, 1992 Commissioner Tolstoy asked what mitigation measures had been formulated for the coastal sage scrub. Mr. Coleman responded that the only mitigation involves setting aside some open space, including some of the coastal sage scrub. Commissioner Tolstoy felt that if density were concentrated on the mesa, the coastal sage scrub area could be left as open area. Mr. Coleman said that was a reasonable suggestion. Ms. Bauer reiterated that the species that were sensitive were in the wash and that area was not being developed. Commissioner Tolstoy stated he was talking about protecting the coastal sage itself, which he felt had been designated by the Department of Fish and Game as a high priority habitat to preserve. He observed that the City has requested the County to preserve that habitat in Etiwanda North, and he felt that the County would not be willing to preserve what is in their domain if the City is not willing to preserve what is under the City's jurisdiction. Mr. Coleman remarked that the request to preserve the habitat in Etiwanda North was because it supports sensitive animal species, whereas the quality of the habitat in this area is not as good. Commissioner Tolstoy felt the habitat should be preserved wherever it is found because it does not occur in very many places. Mr. Murphy stated that the EIR simply addressed the issue. if the Commission felt the area needs to be preserved, function of the subdivision design. He suggested that that would be a Commissioner Tolstoy felt the EIR should state that the area is important to save. Ms. Bauer stated that the approach to date has been that not all habitat can be saved. She noted that studies are now underway to identify where that habitat is most productive in supporting the greatest number of species and has the greatest potential to preserve and protect that species locally. She said then there would be efforts to preserve those locations in order to avoid a situation where the species have to be listed as endangered or threatened. She said this site would not be of the high, rich value that would provide the high intensity benefits for preserving the species. Commissioner Tolstoy felt any EIR could make that conclusion because EIRs are usually written for small spaces. Mr. Coleman stated this project has an abundance of chaparral, which is extremely abundant locally. Planning Commission Minutes -19- April 8, 1992 Commissioner Vallette asked for a capsulization for rationale for Alternative Layouts A, B, and C. Ms. Bauer responded that their concerns were primarily for fire safety, preservation of open space, and protection of resource value. She noted that all alternatives pulled units away from the northeast quadrant, which would be the highest range of fire hazard. She said they attempted to create more of a cluster feeling in Alternatives A and B. She said they looked at the City standards and tried to design some projects which would provide the number of units permitted. She noted they looked at options that may optimize use of solar energy, reduce visibility of streets, and reduce grading. She said they had a concern with the larger lot alternatives because a great deal of land is placed into individual ownership rather than remaining as open space. She said that when land is privately owned, ancillary uses are added which detract from the protection of the habitat and resource values. She felt that Alternatives A and B are environmentally superior, in particular B. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Leeona Klippstein, San Bernardino Sage Friends, 1382 Wesley Avenue, Pasadena, stated that in 1987 alluvial fan coastal sage scrub was identified as an area needing high priority protection. She said at that time there were ten areas containing coastal sage scrub, but there are now only three areas remaining and all are proposed for development'. She said the area in Cucamonga will also have an impact on 81 acres of San Diego Horned Lizard habitat. She said there are over a dozen sensitive species that may be in the area and the spring survey is needed to determine their existence. She said there are so many more endangered species now because habitats have not previously been protected. She felt long range planning should be conducted when species are first listed as sensitive so that habitats are not destroyed. She feared that the loss of this habitat would soon lead to only one habitat left in the area. She believed the EIR should have identified in 1990 that the area should be preserved and that the densities should be moved as far south as possible. She requested that the Commission require a spring survey. She noted that she had visited the area on Sunday and saw a lot of artemisia, which the gnatcatchers like. She said that in one hour at Hughes Markets on the previous Monday evening she had gathered 80 signatures from local residents on a petition requesting that Cucamonga Canyon remain natural open space. She felt by the time the matter reaches City Council, there should be several hundred signatures. She expressed appreciation for the City's efforts in working to preserve the environment. She agreed that the City should set a good example for the County. Catherine Bridge, 8715 Banyan Street, Rancho Cucamonga, noted that she and her husband had sent a letter included in the agenda packets. She said they have two major concerns with the first being the additional traffic caused by the population increase in area from not only the proposed 71 homes, but also the Nordic tract to the east. She felt the formula for traffic on Almond Street has been drastically changed from original plans. She feared that with the City requirements for two entries into each tract, Turquoise would be routed through their property. She said that they were being asked to improve Planning Commission Minutes -20- April 8, 1992 approximately one mile of Turquoise, and she did not think that was fair. She said their original idea was to build four homes on the 20 acres that they own, but they have had to revise their projections up to ten home sites, largely to help support the cost of improvements. She felt it would be wiser to keep population down and save on the need for the costly improvements. She said they had approached the City about six years ago with a proposal to abandon Almond from east of their property over to the wash. She said at the time the neighbors all agreed it was a good idea and the City agreed to consider it, but that plan seemed to have fallen by the wayside. She was also concerned about the proposed elevation of the equestrian trail along the southern boundary of the Sahama tract. She noted that it is proposed to be constructed at an elevation of up to 6 feet higher than the natural flow of the land. She proposed that the area be graded and landscaped with provision for irrigation as the other areas are required to in the plan. She suggested that the changes be made to require landscaping to soften the effect on property owners to the south. She was concerned about the view from their property to the back yards of Lots 1 through 5. Ms. Klippstein noted that an individual can be arrested for removing a sensitive species animal from the wild, but developers can still develop a property and eliminate the species by destroying the habitat. She noted that four more sensitive species have been added to the listing since 1990, which shows how fast habitat is being lost. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Commissioner Melcher asked for clarification regarding sensitive species and habitat. He asked if CEQA requires that threatened or endangered species be preserved. Ann Johnston, biologist for Michael Brandman Associates, 2530 Hill Avenue, Santa Ana, said that normally when a species is listed as threatened or endangered, CEQA requires that the habitat be preserved. She said that is not the case for C-2 species. Commissioner Melcher asked for clarification that no species have been identified on site which are listed as threatened or endangered. Ms. Johnston concurred. Commissioner Melcher asked if the preservation of habitat would then be a judgment call that is outside of the CEQA process and does not affect the EIR. Ms. Bauer stated that was true, but it is a rapidly evolving area. Commissioner Melcher asked if all administrative requirements had been met on the EIR. Ms. Bauer responded affirmatively. She said adequate notification had been provided and they had even gone beyond requirements. She said public hearing requirements were met and nothing had been overlooked in the paper trail. Planning Commission Minutes -21- April 8, 1992 Commissioner Melcher asked if the the Commission could responsibly recommend certification of the EIR to the City Council. Ms. Bauer said they could. She indicated the most challenging issue would be whether the Commission felt the spring survey should be required. She said they believed the same conclusions would be reached although there was a chance that a different result may occur. She believed that even if one of the species is found, it would be found in the wash and the wash will not be altered as a part of the project. She stated that as the City's consultant, she would advise that the City could responsibly act either way. She felt there was adequate basis to certify the document at this time, but it would also be justifiable to require the spring survey. Chairman McNiel asked how species are added to the C-2 listing. Ms. Johnston stated that independent research is done by Fish and Game, Fish and Wildlife, independent biologists, researchers, or qualified experts. She said that if a species is studied and it is determined it is ecologically declining in its range or there are detrimental effects that are occurring, a proposal is presented to the Fish and Wildlife Service or Fish and Game and one of those agencies add the species to their C-2 list to be researched further and make a determination regarding reclassifying as threatened or endangered. She said the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service was petitioned on September 17, 1991, to study the gnatcatcher and they have one year to render an opinion. She said the state was also petitioned to list the gnatcatcher, but the state decided to hold off on listing the gnatcatcher and decided instead to try to develop a habitat conservation plan to try to determine what type of habitat is required, where it is located, and how it should be preserved. She said that is an ongoing process. Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney, observed that the EIR in question deals with a specific project and final action on certification would be taken by the Planning Commission unless the matter were appealed to the City Council. Commissioner Chitiea felt the entire foothill area is a special natural resource. She noted that the area is one of only three remaining that still contains alluvial fan sage scrub and that there had been ten such areas in 1990. She felt the cumulative effect of development is far greater than individual development. She commented that the City has an opportunity to preserve in this area, whereas the City does not have the opportunity to do so in areas outside the City limits. She thought the effects of the encroachment of urbanization should also be considered in relation to wildlife which is not endangered, such as deer. She noted that there are many new houses in the City which cannot sell and she did not think this natural habitat should be torn apart. She felt at the very least the spring study should be required. She thought the sage should be considered in greater depth. Commissioner Tolstoy commented that the property is zoned for development under the General Plan, and he did not feel the City can stop development. However, he felt the EIR should address some of the constraints on the property. He thought the EIR should recommend that the tract be reconfigured Planning Commission Minutes -22- April 8, 1992 with the houses placed on the lower mesa with the habitat on the upper slopes retained. He said that every time scrub is removed, natural resources and animal life is pushed further away. He felt as much natural area should be preserved as possible while allowing the applicant to enjoy the use of the property. He felt the EIR should be revisited in some areas. Commissioner Melcher felt the process had been properly served. He said that the EIR identifies all of the impacts and had found that none of them are significant. He said the consultant had concurred that a number of the items raised in Ms. Klippstein's letter were worthy of further consideration and he thought those issues could be incorporated in conditions on the map if the map were approved. He felt the EIR could be certified. Commissioner Vallette agreed that the EIR is extensive and covers the issues well. She favored Alternative Layout B because she felt it most identified the unique qualities of the area. She felt it is important to preserve as much of the natural habitat as possible. She said she would support the other Commissioners if they felt a spring study should be required even though the consultant felt it would not make any changes. She said she would like to see the whole area preserved, but she did not know if that was a possibility. Chairman McNiel asked if the Commissioners were in agreement with Ms. Bauer's recommendations regarding Ms. Klippstein's letter. Commissioner Chitiea felt that if the EIR were to be certified, it should contain those comments. Commissioner Melcher stated he would be comfortable with the consultant's comments regarding which recommendations would be appropriate for consideration for incorporation in the project. He felt those things should then be associated with any map approved. Chairman McNiel asked if the items should be included with the map or incorporated in the EIR. Mr. Murphy said the letter from Ms. Klippstein and the consultant's formal response would be included in the final EIR document. Chairman McNiel asked if the Commission should move on to considering the tract map. Mr. Murphy stated the Commission should first deal with the EIR. He suggested that if the Commission wished to require a spring survey or any other additional information, it would be best to continue the EIR and the map. He noted that the applicant would have to consent to such continuance because of legal time limits. He suggested that if the Commission felt comfortable with certifying the EIR, they should then move on to considering the tract map. He noted they could certify the EIR without approving the tract map. He said consideration should be given as to whether the map adequately addressed the mitigations mentioned in the EIR. He said that if there were concerns about Planning Commission Minutes -23- April 8, 1992 preservation of natural open space, the Commission should determine if the subdivision design adequately addressed that preservation. He said if not, the Commission could reference the alternatives. Commissioner Melcher acknowledged that the EIR identified two alternates that were environmentally superior but he felt it was written to the map because it indicates the map, with the mitigation measures, reduces the impacts to less than significant. He thought that although the EIR supports the map in its present configuration, it did not mean the Commission would have to approve the map if they certify the EIR. Mr. Coleman remarked that on the original project the EIR was certified, but the project was denied. He noted that any additional work on the EIR, such as a spring survey, would be beyond the scope of the current contract, and if the Commission wished to request any additional work, the applicant would have to consent to payment for the work. Mr. Buller asked if the Commissioners had determined any such additional work was necessary. Chairman McNiel thought that Commissioner Vallette was willing to go either way, Commissioner Chitiea wanted the spring survey, and Commissioner Tolstoy wanted the survey. Commissioner Melcher felt it was quite clear the survey was unnecessary. Chairman McNiel indicated he was inclined to request the spring survey. He reopened the public hearing to ask if the applicant would be willing to pay for the additional work and consent to a continuance. Steve Morton, Sahama Investments, 10700 Jersey Boulevard, Suite 705, stated they would pay for the spring study, agree to the continuance, and consent to waiving of the time limits. Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Chitiea, to continue Environmental Impact Report for Vesting Tentative Tract 14475 for purposes of conducting a spring survey. Mr. Murphy asked if the item was being continued to a date specific. Mr. Hanson recommended against that and suggested the item should be re- -noticed. Mr. Coleman indicated the matter would have to return to the Planning Commission within 90 days because that would be the maximum time extension permitted under CEQA. Mr. Murphy remarked that the biologist had indicated the spring survey would have to be completed by May 1 so the report should be ready by mid-May. Planning Commission Minutes -24- April 8, 1992 The motion to continue Environmental Impact Report for Vesting Tentative Tract 14475 carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried Mr. Murphy questioned if the Commission wanted a survey of all species, the gnatcatcher only, or all sensitive species. Chairman McNiel asked what type of survey was done in November. Ms. Bauer responded it was a full site walkover, but not a sensitive species survey. She indicated a sensitive species survey would be a very detailed analysis. She remarked that the area to be surveyed could depend upon the species selected. She observed that many of the species mentioned in the document are located in the wash and the Commission may feel it would not be necessary to conduct the survey in the wash because the wash will remain. She~ thought that the species that concerned Ms. Klippstein were in the sage and in the chaparral. Ms. Klippstein said she would like to know about all the sensitive species on the site and where they are located. Ms. Bauer commented that the Commission may wish to include the wash because the information could be useful. Commissioner Tolstoy did not feel the survey needed to be conducted in the wash because of the elevation difference between the buildable area and the wash. Commissioner Chitiea felt the wash should be surveyed. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if Commissioner Chitiea's opinion would change if it was found that the sensitive species were found in the wash, but not on the mesa. He felt if the species were on the mesa, that would be something to be dealt with. He thought that if the species were in the wash only, it should not be a concern because the areas have a great separation and the wash will not be developed. Commissioner Chitiea felt the areas are interconnected. Chairman McNiel did not feel it was necessary to survey the entire area. He suggested surveying for sensitive species in the buildable area. Commissioner Melcher said on-site. all. He did not think it needed to be done at Planning Commission Minutes -25- April 8, 1992 Mr. Bullet inquired if it was then the position of the Commission that the spring study only be on the land within the project boundary excluding the wash area. Chairman McNiel said there were three Commissioners that supported that position. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT 14475 - SAHAMA INVESTMENTS - A residential subdivision and design review of 71 single family residences on 113 acres of land in the Hillside Residential (less than 2 dwelling units per acre) and Open Space Districts, located north of Almond Avenue between Sapphire and Turquoise Streets - APN: 200-051-07, 55, 56, and 57. Associated Tree Removal Permit No. 92-06. (Continued from March 25, 1992.) Chairman McNiel asked how the Commission should proceed with respect to Item G. Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney, stated the Commission could not take any action to approve the project because the EIR was not approved, but he suggested that the Commission may wish to take testimony and make comments. Scott Murphy, Associate Planner, presented the staff report and noted that the Engineering Department had requested that sidewalks be included on one side of the streets. He noted that revised proposed conditions providing for sidewalks were in front of the Commissioners. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Steve Morton, Sahama Investments, 10700 Jersey Boulevard, #705, Rancho Cucamonga, stated they would like to wait until the spring study is completed before going into detailed comments regarding the project. He felt they had clustered the houses and noted they did not propose any development in the escarpment area and the fault zone and had dedicated natural open space to the north. He commented that the City had hired the consultant to do the EIR and they had done a lot of work to design the development to address concerns raised in the EIR and by the City. Commissioner Vallette asked how much open space was included in the proposal. Mr. Morton responded that there are preserving 40 acres out of the total 113 acres. Catherine Bridge, 8715 Banyan Street, Rancho Cucamonga, remarked that 17 acres being preserved is actually unbuildable wash. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Mr. Murphy asked if the Commissioners wished to make some comments on the design so that staff could further discuss those concerns with the Planning Commission Minutes -26- April 8, 1992 applicant. He noted that there had been some discussion that perhaps additional open areas should be preserved. Commissioner Melcher stated that since the project went through Design Review he had had an opportunity to study the land at greater length and listen and read at greater length about the environmental issues and he now questioned if the plan is supportable and whether the lot sizes are appropriate. Commissioner Chitiea felt she could not support the project as presented. She felt the tract should have public streets and the trails should be dedicated. Commissioner Tolstoy thought that after the EIR is updated, it may be found that there are some advantages in concentrating the density of the project in the more flat, mesa areas and trying to save some of the alluvial scrub as open space. He said that would reduce some of the disruption to the natural land form in the higher areas which would result in less soil erosion and a lesser fire hazard in the area. He said he could not comment until it is determined what habitat should be preserved. Commissioner Vallette felt that some of the issues brought up during the review of the EIR for the Etiwanda North area had made the Commissioners more aware of some of the concerns raised. She did not feel the present proposal reflects the direction spelled out in the EIR and she felt the applicant should be directed to guard the open areas, which may mean smaller lot sizes. She thought the site plan should reflect minimal street grading. She thought the subdivision proposal included more street than what the EIR suggested. She felt development should be pulled further away from the northeast quadrant because of fire hazards. She proposed more clustering of dwelling units and requested that close attention be paid to the view corridor from the south as well as the views from the new home sites so that each new home would have a view to the valley. She thought that may mean a reduction in units. She thought Mrs. Bridges' questions regarding the relationship of the slope to the property to the south should be addressed and she felt the area should be more naturalized. She preferred that the whole area be kept as natural as possible without greenbelts or contrived slopes. Commissioner Tolstoy noted that if the lots are smaller with more of the north quadrant preserved, more grading would be required. Mr. Murphy noted that the EIR had indicated that with the 1/2 acre lots there would be more grading, but it would be within a confined area. Commissioner Tolstoy felt that the proposed design calls for a minimal amount of grading and the proposed grading would appear more like the natural land form. He thought that if the units are moved down and concentrated, the mesa land form would be disrupted with more grading. Commissioner Vallette supported reducing the number of dwelling units to reduce the amount of grading. Planning Commission Minutes -27- April 8, 1992 Mr. Murphy remarked that with 1/2 acre lots there will be more grading within the clustered area even if the number of units is reduced. Commissioner Chitiea noted that even where extensive grading does not occur, extensive scraping often does occur because the natural habitat is removed to some distance away from the homes as required by the fire department. She said sometimes the land forms may not change, but the habitat still changes significantly. Commissioner Vallette favored Alternative Layout B from the EIR and the amount of open space it preserves. Chairman McNiel agreed with Commissioner Tolstoy that it is unknown until after reviewing the results of the spring study if there is anything salvageable that is significant unless the Commission feels the open space must be preserved anyway. He felt that perhaps other alternatives should be investigated. He noted that the applicant's proposal has the least effect on the natural terrain, but it consumes more ground. Commissioner Vallette noted that the larger lots also allow the individual homeowner to put in more buildings, such as horse barns, etc. Commissioner Tolstoy felt that the applicant had worked to utilize minimal grading and had changed some of the grading so the area would appear like grading had not taken place. He felt the applicant had done a commendable job in that area. Brad Buller, City Planner, suggested that the Commissioners may wish to continue the matter to look at other options in a workshop setting. Commissioner Chitiea suggested it may be more appropriate to continue the matter until after results of the spring survey are known. Mr. Buller did not feel the Commission needed to wait until after the survey. He recommended that the matter be continued to May 7. Mr. Murphy noted that the biologist had indicated the spring study needs to be done by May l, and staff should have a verbal indication shortly after that as to what had been found. Chairman McNiel suggested that the matter be continued to May 7. the public hearing to secure the applicant's consent. He opened Mr. Morton consented to a continuance and to waive the time limits. Commissioner Chitiea stated she did not think she would be able to attend on May 7. Commissioner Tolstoy indicated he would be out of town. Planning Commission Minutes -28- April 8, 1992 Mr. Buller suggested that the meeting be held at 4: 00 p.m. on Wednesday, May 6. Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Vallette, to continue Vesting Tentative Tract 14475 to 4:00 p.m. on Wednesday, May 6, 1992. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Chitiea, carried 4-1 with Melcher voting no, to continue beyond 11:00 p.m. The Planning Commission recessed from 11:42 p.m. to 11:50 p.m. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 92-06 - COUTS OIL - A request to establish a 1,170 square foot office within an existing industrial park on 7.38 acres of land in the General Industrial District (Subarea 8) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located at 10700 Jersey Boulevard, Suite 700 - APN: 209-144-83. Steve Ross, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. There were no public comments, and Chairman McNiel closed the hearing. Commissioner Tolstoy saw no parking conflicts. Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Vallette, to adopt the resolution approving Conditional Use Permit 92-06. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried APPEAL OF TREE REMOVAL PERMIT 91-47 - LOS ANGELES COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION - An appeal of conditions of approval lrequiring replacement planting of 7 eucalyptus trees within the railroad right-of-way, located west of Hellman Avenue directly north of 7518 Pepper Street - APN: 208-011-05. Planning Commission Minutes -29- April 8, 1992 Tom Grahn, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report and noted that a letter had been received from the applicant agreeing with staff's recommendations. He noted that the applicant had advised they were unable to attend tonight's meeting. Commissioner Melcher questioned if the Tree Preservation Ordinance permits off-site replacement planting. He felt a better vehicle would be a variance. Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, stated that staff did not feel the ordinance specifically prohibited off-site replacement. Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney, felt the ordinance indicated a preference for on-site replacement planting, but he thought there was discretion within the ordinance for the Commission or City Planner to permit off-site replacement planting since it was not specifically prohibited. Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Vallette, to uphold the appeal and direct staff to modify Condition 2 to allow off-site replacement planting. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITlEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 92-02 - INTERNATIONAL FELLOWSHIP OF CHURCHES - A request to establish a church within an existing industrial building in the General Industrial District (Subarea 4) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located at 9746 Sixth Street - APN: 209-211-33. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. Anna-Lisa Hernandez, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report and noted a letter had been received from the applicant indicating they would address the concerns raised by the Police Department. Commissioner Tolstoy noted that a question had been raised regarding inadequate lighting in the parking lot. He asked what had been done to address that concern. Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, responded that the resolution was conditioned to require that parking lot lighting be installed to the satisfaction of the Police Department and the Planning Division. Commissioner Melcher asked if the parking spaces along Archibald were included in the parking calculations. Ms. Hernandez responded affirmatively. Planning Commission Minutes -30- April 8, 1992 Commissioner Melcher felt the parking along Archibald is completely divorced from the area the church will occupy. He did not feel those stalls should be considered. Mr. Coleman felt the church would not need those stalls. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. James Planck, Pastor, International Fellowship of Churches, 1231 South Althea, Rialto, felt that adequate lighting can be installed around the building they will be occupying as a church. He noted that the Police had raised the issue of lighting along Sixth Street, but said they would not be using street parking along Sixth Street and would not be able to add lighting to that area. Chairman McNiel felt that the applicant could work with staff to address the lighting issue. Commissioner Melcher stated he wanted to go on record in opposition to the project. He noted that the only landscaping in the center is contained in narrow little fingers. He felt the complex is not well kept and he did not thi~k signage on the church would be adequate. He felt the church should have more visibility. Mr. Planck remarked that their current building is in the back of a complex in Ontario and they have not encountered any problems with the location. He noted that a moving company in the complex was messy but said the company had advised they are moving from the complex. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Motion: Moved by McNiel, seconded by Tolstoy, to issue a Negative Declaration and adopt the resolution approving Conditional Use Permit 92-02. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE NOES: COMMISSIONERS: MELCHER ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried MODIFICATION TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 90-37 - FOOTHILL MARKETPLACE PARTNERS - A request to amend certain conditions of approval for a previously approved 60-acre commercial retail center in the Regional Related Commercial Designation (Subarea 4) of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, located on the south side of Foothill Boulevard between 1- 15 and Etiwanda Avenue - APN: 229-031-03 through 13, 15, 16, 20, and a portion of 59. Planning Commission Minutes -31- April 8, 1992 Scott Murphy, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Commissioner Vallette questioned where the two homes would be relocated. Mr. Murphy replied they will be relocated to North Town where they will be used for low income housing under the auspices of the Redevelopment Agency. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Greg Wattson, Foothill Marketplace Partners, 3620 Birch Street, Suite 100, Newport Beach, stated they were continuing to work on satisfying the Historic Preservation Commission conditions and he indicated they would have satisfied all of the seven HPC conditions except for the public art by close of business on Friday. Chairman McNiel asked why it had taken so long to satisfy the conditions. Mr. Wattson said that without Price Club and WalMart there would be no project. He indicated they had therefore put all their efforts into getting those plans through CalTrans 'and engineering. He reported that the Metropolitan Water District had advised they would consider the 'request if the developer would pay. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Chitiea, to adopt the resolution approving Modification to Conditional Use Permit 90-37. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITlEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried NEW BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 91-15 - MONARCH FOODS (SHAKEY'S} - The development of a 5,000 square foot restaurant within the Tetra Vista Town Center in the Community Commercial District of the Terra Vista Planned Community, located on the north side of Foothill Boulevard, east of Haven Avenue - APN: 1077-421-76. Brad Buller, City Planner, presented the staff report. Chairman McNiel invited public comment. Tim Harrison, Monarch Foods, 651 Gateway Boulevard, #1200, South San Francisco, stated they were willing to accept the conditions recommended by staff. He requested approval. Planning Commission Minutes -32- April 8, 1992 Commissioner Vallette noted that there had been architectural design concerns regarding the tower element and a request had been made to shorten the element. She asked if the plans had been revised. Otto Kroutil, Deputy City Planner, said the plans showed the revised design. He said the only outstanding issue was the specific type of dome. Commissioner Tolstoy felt the design should be revised. Mr. Kroutil said there had been lengthy debate as to whether the element should be plaster or tile with direction that it should be plaster. Commissioner Vallette did not recall seeing the plans. Chairman McNiel stated the initial proposal was for a tile chimney assembly and it had been reduced dramatically. Miles Berger, Berger Detmer, architect, 8 Columbus, San Francisco, stated the center of the restaurant will contain a pizza bar with an area for people to sit around it. He said it would be a focal point of the inside of the restaurant. Mr. Kroutil said there had been several different design presentations at the second Design Review Committee meeting, and the design presented this evening was the one selected. He said tile was a big issue and the Commission may wish to discuss the matter. Mr. Berger said it had been the thought that a plaster dome would not conflict with the other tower elements in the center. He felt that as the building is approached, the tile tower entrance on the entrance is more prominent because the dome is more in the center of the building and would only be seen from a distance. Chairman McNiel said the dome is recessed from the side of the building and would only be seen from a distance, not from up close. Mr. Berger said they had submitted a higher element at the last Design Review Committee meeting, but it was felt that the lower scale was more appropriate. He said they had submitted several suggested treatments for the top of the dome to staff. Commissioner Melcher asked if the applicant would be willing to put tile on the dome if requested. Mr. Berger said that would cost a lot. Mr. Harrison thought the Design Review Committee had felt a plaster element would be better because tile would compete with other towers in the center. Planning Commission Minutes -33- April 8, 1992 Mr. Kroutil suggested the Commission could approve the Development Review subject to the Design Review Committee's approval of the final design of the dome. Mr. Berger suggested they consider the proposed top treatments presented to staff. There were no further public comments. Commissioner Vallette asked if the Design Review Committee members were in agreement architecturally with the proposed element. Chairman McNiel said he felt the design was satisfactory, but Commissioner Chitiea did not like it. He said he was not particularly enthusiastic about the globe at the top. Commissioner Tolstoy agreed with Commissioner Chitiea. Commissioner Chitiea felt it would be acceptable to approve the project subject to Design Review Committee approval of the tower element. Commissioner Vallette agreed. Commissioner Melcher felt the plaster was acceptable. Chairman McNiel thought the plaster finish is appropriate. Commissioner Tolstoy did not like the plaster. Commissioner Chitiea felt the design of the dome and its decorative finishes should be reconsidered. Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Chitiea, to adopt the resolution approving Development Review 91-15, with modification to require the design of the dome to be approved by the Design Review Committee prior to issuance of building permits. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE NOES: COMMISSIONERS: MELCHER ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried Commissioner Melcher stated he voted no because he did not feel the project should have to return to Design Review. Commissioner Tolstoy noted that plaster never seems to hold up very long when used at the top of parapets on some residential buildings. He feared the same thing would happen with the dome. Planning Commission Minutes -34- April 8, 1992 Commissioner Melcher felt that the plaster would hold up fine if designed correctly. COMMISSION BUSINESS Brad Buller, City Planner, stated that he had not been able to schedule a time for Commissioners Vallette and Melcher to meet with the Building Official. He said dual glazing would be discussed at a future meeting. Chairman McNiel stated he had artended the most recent Historic Preservation Commission meeting and the Commissioners had worked on formulating Commission goals and establishing a sense of policy direction. He said he had been impressed by the way the Chairman had run the meeting and all the Commissioners had offered ideas. He suggested that the Planning Commission do the same thing. commissioner Vallette suggested it may be a good idea and she thought it could be done in the summer. Commissioner Melcher felt it could be a good idea if it were given some focus. Commissioner Chitiea asked if the workshop at the Tolstoy residence had not accomplished the same thing. Chairman McNiel felt that the Commissioners reviewed staff's workload but they hadn't established their own goals and priorities and directions. Commissioner Vallette suggested a discussion of visions of the Commissioners. Chairman McNiel felt it might suggestion new visions. Commissioner Melcher asked if each Commissioner should submit topics of concern prior to such a meeting. Chairman McNiel felt that would be appropriate. Brad Buller, City Planner, stated that if the Commission would like to pursue the idea, staff would be available to facilitate or participate. He agreed it would be good for the Commissioners to discuss their goals and priorities. Commissioner Melcher suggested a series of workshop meetings on the Commission and its business might be appropriate on an ongoing basis. He thought quarterly meetings might be good with topics such as work programs, current planning ideas and objectives, long range planning and objectives, and design objectives. Planning Commission Minutes -35- April 8, 1992 Chairman McNiel stated the Historic Preservation had reviewed ideas under four categories: strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats. He said they then further narrowed things down to what they are good at, places where they need to improve, the opportunities available that are being missed, and the things that hinder getting the job done. Mr. Buller said the program was brought by the new Historic Preservation Commission Chairman, Steve Preston. Commissioner Melcher felt that it may give the Commission a chance to be a little more proactive rather than reactive. ADJOURNMENT Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Vallette, to adjourn. 12:50 a.m. - The Planning Commission adjourned to a workshop at 8:00 p.m. on April 16, 1992, regarding Foothill Marketplace. ~EEd taRes ully s ' ed Planning Commission Minutes -36- April 8, 1992